Observers and critics of science centers sometimes ask: "They're having a great time, but are they actually learning anything?"
(See, for instance, Friedman, 2001.) This question reflects the culture of schools, where performance, as registered by the many
different testing regimes in use around the world, is essentially geared to the achievement of predetermined targets and driven
by a pre-imposed curriculum.

Science centers, in contrast, typically impose no such curriculum, and the learning pathways to be followed are normally determined
by the learners themselves. Mapping learners' achievements thus depends on recognizing the destinations that are reached along this
pathway. It also depends on an understanding that the journey and the destinations are equally significant.

Every learner starts and finishes the science center experience at a different point on the pathway. The simplest language with
which to describe the informal learning process is
attraction engagement ownership

Researchers have elaborated this sequence in a number of ways, for example:

Some argue that "Learning is learning, whether acquired formally or informally." It's therefore important to be clear that
the term "informal learning," as opposed to "classroom learning," describes a process, as well as an outcome.

The informal learning process mirrors everyday life much more closely than the formal teaching/learning situation, andif
only on the evidence of what the small child learns in infancyit is a process which human beings undertake not only
very willingly, but with conspicuous success. The work of science centers (and other informal learning settings) mirrors this
natural path, and not merely in its unpremeditated and exploratory nature: Early childhood learning is closely tied to the
development and use of language. The science center, in similar fashion, provides a social learning environment, in which people
gain new understandings through articulating their experience. "Talking through" a problem or a puzzle is an everyday strategy
which may be seen in constant use during a science center visit, whether among members of a family or a peer group.

Documenting learning in the science center environment is challenging because the evidence for learning outcomes is not often
seen at the same time as the experience provided by the center. Rarely does that "Aha!" moment take place at the time of the
visit. Much more frequently, some later situation provides the context within which the learner sees the relevance of the
science center experience and makes sense of it.

However, this is not, as some might argue, a limitation for the work of science centers, but rather an indication of its power.
Science centers offer a unique range of life-enhancing experiences and potential insights through which each visitor is able to
assemble a personal databank for later consultation.

"Learning is a process of active engagement with experience. It is what people do when they want to make sense
of the world. It may involve the development or deepening of skills, knowledge, understanding, awareness, values, ideas
and feelings, increase in the capacity to reflect. Effective learning leads to change, development, and the desire to
learn more."Campaign for Learning in Museums & Galleries,quoted by Hawkey (2004)

Educational institutions have traditionally defined learning as the retention of factual information.
The approach to education based on this view of learning emphasizes delivery, rather than engagement, on the assumption that
the learner will take on board an appropriate selection of what is offered.

However, science centers and museums (and even some schools) have moved a long way from the narrow "transmitting
teacher/passive learner" ethos of the past. Adopting a view of the learning process which regards the learner as an active
participant in the construction of new knowledge and understanding, science centers celebrate the individual, provide
opportunities for each individual to construct his/her own learning pathway, and allow for a multitude of outcomes from each
encounter.

In order to understand and explain the significance of the museum or science center as a learning environment, therefore, it
is vital to pay attention to the range of learning processes, as well as the possible learning outcomes.

Speaking of "Personal Technologies and Education," Sharples (2000) strikes a close parallel with the science center and
museum world when he says that "Learning is a continual conversation: with the external world and its artifacts,
with oneself, and also with other learners and teachers. And the most successful learning comes when the learner is in
control of the activity, able to test ideas by performing experiments, to ask questions, collaborate with other people,
seek out new knowledge, and plan new actions."

The terms "informal" and "non-formal" are used interchangeably in what follows, and in many of the references. They refer to
learning situations, contrasted with the formal school classroom or the workplace, in which the learners are

encouraged to move freely around the learning environment, which is generally full of stimuli
or many kindsphysical, three-dimensional, and audiovisual

dependent only to a limited extent on listening to or reading verbal messages

free from the disciplinary constraints applied by a classroom teacher, though remaining under a degree of social control

allowed to make their own decisions about their route and pace of learning

frequently working together in peer groups or family units to develop their experience, knowledge, and understanding

Non-formal learning can be seen happening from an infant's earliest exploration of the surroundings to
every visit to a library, a symphony concert, or even a football game. Its choices inform the whole world of play.

Thus, in the language of Dierking & Falk (1994) and Falk & Dierking (2000), science centers and museums may be
described as "free-choice learning environments." Personal, sociocultural, and physical contexts contribute to and influence
visitors' interactions and experiences.

Personal contexts for learning include the learner's

existing motivation and expectationsand the climate of positive expectation which the center can create

the need for learners to feel comfortable in their new surroundings before effective learning can take place

the importance of an orientation phase at the start of an educational visit

the need to design and reinforce the learning experience itself.

The individual visitor's experience, and consequent learning, results from the interactions between
these three overlapping contexts (see Falk & Dierking, 2001).

As Falk (2002) reports, "Research suggests that nearly half of the public's understanding of science derives from [the
informal and free-choice learning] sector, which supports the on-going and continuous learning of all citizens."

For an authoritative text on "learning in the museum," see Hein (1998), and for a synopsis of the "experiential learning
cycle," see Atherton (2002). A usefully different approachthat of an environmental psychologistis taken by
Bitgood (2002). For a wide-ranging introduction to the science communication field, see Stocklmayer et al. (2001).

The educational system, both within schools and in the wider community, has spawned a great deal of research into learning.
Some of the research relevant to science centers and museums is summarized in a resource developed under the auspices
of the UK's Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council (see also Hooper-Greenhill & Moussouri, 2003):

Inspiring Learning for All
Drawing on the learning research, MLA proposes a set of five "generic learning objectives" for museums and galleries:

Knowledge and understanding

Skills

Values and attitudes

Enjoyment, inspiration, and creativity

Activity, behavior, and progression

These objectives are the most recent in a series dating back to Bloom & Kratwohl (1956), who proposed
a taxonomy of learning objectives in which the domains of learning were classified as: cognitive (knowledge with understanding),
psycho-motor (practical skills), and affective (motivational and ethical aspects).

Museum Learning Collaborative
This comprehensive annotated literature database aims to generate "a common research focus, one that builds from two
substantial bodies of knowledgeon learning and on museumsto create a clearer understanding of how learning
occurs in museum environments." Although not updated since 2003, the archive remains online and should be a first point
of reference for anyone studying this field.

Observational studies which concentrate in some detail on the behavior of individuals and
small groups

Sampling studies, in which snapshots of visitor behaviours are obtained throughout an exhibition at fixed time intervals

Tracking of individuals, noting how their time is spent and how they interact with other people and with elements of the
exhibition

Convening focus groups to provide advice both prior to the establishment of a new facility and also to evaluate it once open

Surveys of all kindsbefore, after, and during visitsincluding surveys of those who choose not to visit

Feedback from science center staff. Many science centers employ explainers to work with visitors on the exhibition floor.
Unlike museum custodians, they are true facilitators of learning. Their reports of conversations with visitors carry a high level of
authenticity.

A visit to a science center is much more than an encounter with physical phenomena. It is an
opportunity for social interaction and self-expression, both of which are routes to learning. People generally visit
science centers in groups (families or pre-arranged parties). The visit involves a good deal of shared experience and
conversation. Articulating an experience, together with the associated ideas which flow from it, is an important mechanism
for understanding. It is widely recognised that talking around a situation is an important route to the making of meaning
(Perry, 1981)"a thought expressed is a thought possessed." There is a further step, however. Subsequent conversation
among group members provides a hierarchy for learning, which builds from

Observation  "Did you see … happening?" via

Contextualisation  "That reminds me of …" to

Interpretation  "I think that's because …"

There is a need for well-validated methodologies and rigorous research in this area.

Much of what has been written about learning in museums and science centers has been concerned with exhibits, and little
account has yet been taken of the much wider educational menu which most institutions now offer (see, for instance, Cross
& Fensham, 2000).

In laboratories and workrooms, weather stations and computer labs, discovery rooms and demonstration theatres, libraries
and planetariums, and a wide range of other spaces, science centers accommodate a variety of activities and interactions.
These include

debate and discussionwhether formally constituted or spontaneous

consultative and deliberative enquiriesformally undertaken over a lengthy period, leading to opinion surveys or
consensus conferences

theatrical encountersfor example, with character actors and demonstrators

science clubsand related activity, such as the production of scientific magazines by young visitors

Science centers have much to offer in the field which is variously called "science in/and society" or
"science and/for citizenship" through the processes of engagement and dialogue. Worldwide, there now seems to be an adoption
of the Café Scientifique idea: guests meet in a non-science environment such as a bar or café to hear an
introductory talk on a scientific topic, and then to engage in debate with the speaker and one another. Many science
museums now animate their galleries with "people to talk to," whether they be hobby scientists, professionals (perhaps
retirees), or even costumed character actors with a well rehearsed brief. Examples of such programs include the following:

The Cardiac Classroom
Through two-way audio and video links with surgeons at a nearby hospital, mediated by Liberty Science Center educators,
Cardiac Classroom enables participants to talk to the operating team during live surgery.

Meet the Scientist
A program based in a number of UK science centers in which the science center becomes a forum for researchers to engage in
dialogue with the general public. Each series of events is preceded by a training workshop for scientists and center staff.

Darwin Centre Live
A daily public program at London's Natural History Museum. Together with trained science communicators, museum scientists
openly discuss their work with visitors and online audiences. The aim is to encourage dialogue between scientists and the
public about current science issues and to open up public access to collections.

Lest it be thought that this is a straightforward process, advocates should bear in mind a significant
range of research that has been undertaken. In the UK, the most cited reference to "science and society" is an influential
report with this very title:

Science and Societythe Jenkin Report
Commissioned by the UK's House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, this 2000 report is widely regarded as a
landmark in the developing field of "public engagement with science." Maintaining that "Society's relationship with science
is in a critical phase," but that science is exciting and full of opportunities, the report identified key problems, among
them: the difficulty in communicating uncertainty and risk, current trends and demands in school science education, and
relations between science and the media.

For important insight on how scientists themselves view their public communication, see this paper
presented to the Sixth International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Geneva, which sets the
scene for more recent thinking:

A report from the British think-tank, Demos (see Wilson & Willis, 2004) reminds us of two earlier
phases of thinking:

Public understanding of science (PUS)

From deficit to dialogue and advocates that for the 21st century we must turn our attention to:

Moving engagement upstream

The argument is that researchers (and their government sponsors) have a responsibility to carry out
"upstream" consultation with the public about research directions. Public debate about the likely implications and
applications is critical  both for democratic reasons and because of the political requirement to carry public
opinion with the ways in which public money is spent.

The whole area of public understanding of research (its content, methodology, and implications) has been
studied most thoroughly in the United States, starting with a conference at the Science Museum of Minnesota, and leading to a
publication by Chittenden et al. (2004), which deals comprehensively with a wide range of aspects.

Following are further examples of activities and agencies in this field:

AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology
Through the activities of this center, the American Association for the Advancement of Science aims "to address the need for
increased public participation in the decisions made by scientists and policymakers, and to create a forum for real dialogue
among policymakers, the general public and the scientific community."

The BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science)
The BA is the UK's nationwide, open membership organisation dedicated to connecting science with people, so that science and
its applications become accessible to all. The BA aims to promote openness about science in society and to engage and
inspire people directly with science and technology and their implications."

National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
This Vermont-based organization provides networking and support for individuals and institutions engaged in dialogue and
deliberation. Useful material for beginners appears on the website, e.g. "What are Dialogue and Deliberation?"

Public Agenda Foundation
This New York-based organization's mission is to help American leaders understand the public's point of view, and citizens
know more about critical policy issues so they can make thoughtful, informed decisions.

Sense About Science
A British charitable trust that works "to promote an evidence-based approach to scientific issues in the public domain.
The trust works with organizations, experts and opinion formers to encourage this approach, particularly in areas of
controversy, of which the debates surrounding genetics, hormones, and vaccines are current examples."

Science centers have exceptional potential, but to measure their long-term impact is complex. The key difficulty is that
there will always be an indeterminate time period and physical distance between the science center experience and the
context within which it is subsequently assimilated and applied. What is more, we know little about the starting point from
which individual visitors acquire their science center experience, given that they are not necessarily members of a school
class which has followed a known curriculum.

An important baseline study in the UK by the Office of Science & Technology, OST/Wellcome Trust
(2000), has identified a range of underlying attitudes within the British population, and described them in terms of six
categories. These attitudinal groups are described as follows:

Confident believers
Concerned
Not sure
Technophile
Supporters
Not for me

17%
13%
17%
21%
17%
15%

Long-term research is needed to track changes in the size and nature of these groups and to make reference to international
comparisons, such as the Eurobarometer (see European Commission, 2001)

The impact of science centers on their communities has been discussed and documented by two ASTC
Presidents (Persson, 2000, and Witschey, 2001) in papers which provide brief but important insights.

Science center networks throughout the world are addressing this important issue. Quantifiable data
are already collected and monitored by the science centers in the UK and reported via the website of
ECSITE-UK.

The UK Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council has developed a 4-point framework to set standards and
measure impact, to serve as the yardstick against which museums, archives, and libraries are measured:

Providing effective learning opportunities

Creating a welcoming environment that enables access and supports learning

Working creatively with others to provide learning and access opportunities

Ensuring that the organization has learning at its heart and that the work contributes to broader learning and access
agendas.

There remains, nevertheless, a largely un-researched and hard-of-access area of human learning and
understanding in which there is a long time interval between 'having an experience' and 'making sense of it'. Much
non-formal learning is like that: whereas in the classroom situation you typically receive a pre-considered presentation,
linked to practice and reinforcement, in the non-formal situation you gather experience more randomly, like an infantand make use of it all later.

Museums and science centers provide motivating and enriching environments for learning.
Immediate impact can be exciting, but the "slow burn" effects on learning and motivation are more significant.

This "free-choice" environment strongly engages the attention of learners and allows for responses in relation to
their individual backgrounds.

Museums and science centers also support the educational role of parents and teachers.

An important opportunity provided by science centers concerns "talking to learn." Conversation, whether with family
members or peer groups leads to that articulation of ideas which is at the heart of assimilating them. Such social learning
opportunities cannot readily be achieved in schools.

Learning in museums and science centers takes place in a wider world context which begins with the learner's prior
experience, takes in the interactive opportunities andvery importantlythe related programming activities
provided by the center. Teachers as well as students learn from this process.

Science centers provide venues for discussion, consultation, and deliberation which are widely perceived as neutralin relation to political adherence and even in relation to the scientific community as a whole.

Governments and major educational trusts across the world are becoming increasingly aware of these potential benefits.

Colin Johnson was the Director and CEO of Techniquest in Cardiff, Wales, from 1997 to 2004. Prior to joining the Techniquest staff in
1990, he had taught high school science, worked with pre-service and in-service teachers, authored a popular textbook, and worked in curriculum development. Johnson
has been active in both ECSITE and ASTC, including serving on the ASTC Board of Directors.

Falk, John H. "The Contribution of Free-Choice Learning to Public Understanding of Science."
Interciencia (27): 62-65.

Friedman, Alan.
"They're Having Fun
 But Are They Learning Anything?" Forum on Education of the American Physical Society (Spring
2001).
(Reprinted with permission of the Parents League of New York, Inc.)

Garnett, Robin. The Impact of Science Centers/Museums on their Surrounding
Communities: Summary Report (PDF).
International Science Centre Steering Group, 2002.
A study commissioned in 2001 by an informal group of 13 science centers and conducted by Robin Garnett (2002) at Questacon,
Canberra, Australia, pulled together 180 reports of completed research on the outcomes of visits to science centers. Of
these, 87% focus on aspects of "personal impact," defined as "the change that occurs in an individual as a result of his/her
contact with a science center." Included are science learning, changed attitudes to science, social experience, career
directions, increased professional expertise, and personal enjoyment.

Perry, W. G. "Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning." Eds. A. W. Chickering and Associates.
The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1981.

Center for Informal Learning and Schools
(CILS). A formal/free-choice research program developed jointly by the Exploratorium, the University of
California Santa Cruz, and Kings College London, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.